It's childish to pin hope on corporate regulations

San Miguel

Who’s more moral? A “soulless” corporation that provides goods, services, and jobs to the people (“Beware of the soulless corporations,” April 28)? Or a government that forcibly takes the earnings of its citizens’ hard work? What does it mean when a corporation gets more profits? It means that more people have voluntarily chosen to purchase their products because they have made it cheaper/better than their competitors. What does it mean when government revenues are up? It means the government has threatened more people with imprisonment so they can take more of their earnings. Libertarians and other free-market advocates don’t want people to be soulless; they believe it is soulless of the government to use force to decrease people’s choices or earnings. I agree that corporations should not be considered people, but painting them as “immoral” bad guys and government regulation as our only hope is childish.

Let’s consider outsourcing. What would happen if the government “required” (euphemism for “forced”) businesses to stay here? Sure, you would see some jobs stay here, that is what’s seen. But what is unseen are the people in Third World countries who wouldn’t have the jobs a corporation could bring (that they would have chosen to take), the higher prices American’s would have to pay for goods, and the capital that could have created more jobs here in the United States, but instead would have to go toward the higher prices.

I also cringe at corporations owning politicians and getting bailouts or special privileges. But a small government could not grant such privileges.